It’s often the case that when Sinn Fein come on TV no matter what they say they get dragged into some debate by ivory tower politicians trying to win some moral high ground in the perpetual battle on whether screwing the country financially was better than being involved in an armed conflict with a known oppressor.

So you might not get to hear from bright young people like Eoin O’Broin (@EOBroin‏) unless you go to a Mary Lou tea party or listen to his outstanding presentation on the Echo Chamber Podcast As it turns out not only is Eoin O’Broin well versed in the Housing Crisis but he has some very sensible solutions that can work. The following was taken from a post on the SF party site and well worth digesting:

The Dublin Mid-West TD was responding to the announcement by Minister Murphy of a revised Council loan scheme, an affordable home scheme and an affordable rental scheme.

Deputy Ó Broin said: “The affordable housing measures announced by Minister Murphy today are deeply disappointing. They will have little impact on the affordability crisis and have the potential to cause real problems in the future."

“The revised council loan scheme for first time buyers is a rehash of the existing scheme. While the 2% fixed interest rate will be of benefit to some people, the scheme itself is badly designed. The scheme allows first time buyers to breach the central bank lending rules in order to buy overpriced homes. The existing council loan scheme has had a very poor take-up and a large level of significant mortgage arrears. I am genuinely concerned that the revised scheme will lead to the same results."

“The new affordable housing scheme is very unclear. Granting the Local Authority an equity stake in the home is cumbersome. The basis of the stake and the reasons for it have not been explained. It is also not clear what the relationship to the Local Infrastructure Fund and the €25m affordable housing fund is. Again, the concern is that public funds will be used to facilitate the purchase of overpriced homes."

“Most disappointing of all is the absence of any real affordable rental scheme. There has been a government commitment since 2014 to introduce such a scheme, yet all the Minister has said today is that there will be a pilot at some undefined point in the future. Struggling renters will be asking themselves why it is taking so long to get this off the ground."

“The Governments focus should be on providing a stream of genuinely affordable homes ranging from €170,000 to €260,000 for those earning between €45,000 and €75,000. This would be best achieved by Councils developing affordable homes on public land accessing finance from the Housing Finance Agency or the Strategic Investment Fund."​“While a small number of families may benefit from today’s announcement, it will do little to address the growing affordability crisis for tens of thousands of struggling working people desperate to buy or rent at genuinely affordable prices.”

The following post is pulled from a thread on Twitter by @ChetPowell and is about to be made into a full length feature on Netflix (not really but it should be, have a read)...

Yesterday, as Trump was ranting about “shithole countries,” I was in a county courthouse in Georgia looking at a death certificate for a black man who died in 1930. I watched the courthouse employees’ faces closely as they read the cause of death “Unlawful act.” Their confused looks confirmed what I suspected; they had never seen such a vague description listed as a cause of death. They clearly did not know about the incident that occurred there 88 years before, even though it had been the focus of national news for weeks back in 1930.

“It was a lynching” I explained, pointing to the word scribbled in parenthesis on the document. I had them pull another death certificate; this one for a white 16 year-old girl who had died one day prior to the man. Her cause of death was listed as “Murder.”

The man was accused of raping & murdering the girl the day before. He had fled into the woods after locals spotted him on the road not far away from her body. The sheriff arrived quickly & immediately called for assistance from neighbouring law enforcement agencies. They began tracking him as soon as dogs arrived; first, along a creek through the woods, then across fields & through more woods. It continued for eighteen hours, with more & more men joining in from other counties, until the track ended at a cabin nearly 20 miles away. The posse, which had grown to nearly one thousand by that time, quickly surrounded the house. The owner told the sheriff that the suspect was not there. However, when the sheriff & two deputies searched it, they discovered him hiding in the kitchen. The posse waited restlessly outside as the sheriff questioned the suspect. The restlessness quickly transformed the men from a posse into a mob. They rushed into the cabin & grabbed the owner, intending to “teach him a lesson” for sheltering the suspect.

Fortunately the sheriff was able to calm them down. Unfortunately, their focus turned to the suspect. The heavily armed mob told the sheriff that he could maintain custody of the suspect, but instead of the county jail, they would be taking him to where the girl’s body was found. He was ordered to follow a truck loaded with 15 armed men. Another 75 to 100 cars & trucks followed closely behind the sheriff.

When the caravan reached the city limits, the sheriff – knowing that the mob likely intended to lynch his suspect – attempted to get away when the lead truck made a turn. Dozens of shots were fired, disabling the sheriff's car.

The sheriff, deputies & suspect were forced into another vehicle & transported to mob’s intended destination. Upon arrival, the suspect was chained to a tree. A crowd of more than a thousand, including women & children, watched as his fingers and toes were removed, “joint by joint.” A pole was jabbed into his mouth when he began to scream. It was removed only long enough to pull his teeth with pliers. More torture, to gruesome to describe, took place. In total, it lasted for more than an hour. He was still alive when the mob piled sticks & logs under him, poured gas on & ignited the fire. Several men fired their weapons at point blank range. The body was left there for the day.

Thousands of people “rode out to see the spectacle.” Twelve hours later, at sunset, the sheriff & deputies removed & buried the body. Details of the lynching were published in America’s newspapers from coast to coast. Despite an investigation, which included convening a grand jury, no one was ever charged.

The reason I decided to tweet about this is because of what happened next… not back in 1930, but YESTERDAY, both in that Georgia courthouse and in the White House. After I concluded providing them with the details, one employee nodded approvingly,“They knew how to handle things back then.”“Good for them,” said another.The 1st began to expound on their opinion; "You know, it's about damn time we stopped being afraid to-" when a black women walked into the office. The employee cheerfully greeted the lady with familiarity;"Hey, Betty." I watched as they exchanged pleasantries.The employees' tones & demeanour had completely changed. It was both astonishing & disturbing. It was as if I was watching a performance, done for an audience of one; Betty. I had the urge to shout,"Don't believe it Betty! It's just an act! RUN!"

But of course I just stood there, for just long enough to not seem rude. Having concluded my business, I thanked them & left. I started the car & by habit, turned on the radio just in time to hear about Trump’s “shithole” remarks. I cringed. There was no doubt in my mind where the “It’s about damn time we stopped being afraid to-” remark was headed had the black lady not walked in at that time.

I had heard that tone & seen that sneer too many times before. Like when I was 9 years-old, & a neighbour jubilantly exclaimed "Somebody finally killed that nigger!" The 'somebody' he was referring to turned out to be James Earl Ray & the 'nigger' was Martin Luther King Jr. That was the day, the exact minute, when I realized how truly evil racism was. Yes, I had seen news stories showing protesters being knocked down with fire hoses, attacked by dogs & beat with clubs, but that was on TV, somewhere else far away. Seeing Farmer Jekyll transform into the demented Farmer Hyde right in front of me was traumatic. It scared the hell out of me & I never forgot it. I never respected him again.

I saw & heard that same deep hatred in that courthouse yesterday and I felt that same sickness gnawing at my soul as it did on that terrible day in 1968. Listening to the news about Trump on the way home, I recalled other racist things he has said & done. I also remembered how, during Obama's presidency, Republicans had made absurd & baseless claims that Obama was not only not a Christian; he was a Muslim & a racist, intent on destroying America by dividing us. And look at those same Republicans today; practically worshiping a pathetic excuse for a man who is doing exactly what they falsely accused Obama of doing.

People like those I saw yesterday, who make up Trump’s base, key off of every hateful ignorant word Trump spits out, whether it’s through his foul mouth or by applying his pudgy little fingers to a keypad. And all it would take to send them into an uncontrollable rage is for Donald Trump to say something just as their inner hatred hits the boiling point. Donald Trump personifies everything that is WRONG with America today. He is greedy. He is a misogynist. Donald Trump is a bigot. He is a hypocrite, both religiously & patriotically. He is hateful. Donald Trump is a racist. Donald Trump is un-American. Donald Trump has not only broken his oath & trampled on our Constitution, he has pillaged & profiteered like a pirate, all under the protection of the GOP. Donald Trump has removed the name of Lincoln from the Republican Party & replaced it with his own. Donald Trump is that mob from 1930. Donald Trump will NEVER be my president. I am #TheResistance

One can also draw the conclusion that the boy’s parents were not involved in the decision making process which raises further ethical questions. To anyone who dismisses H&M’s roll out of the shot please consider the following:

Monkey chanting has been used by football hooligans for over thirty years to discourage black players from both performing and playing the game.

Carl-Gustaf Scott writes about racism in Swedish football in the 80’s and 90’s in his book - African Footballers in Sweden: Race, Immigration, and Integration in the Age of Globalization

He writes; “Djurgarden’s supporters for instance chanted ‘Samir Bakaou belongs in a zoo’, whereas IFK Goteborg’s fans made monkey noises shouting ‘ugh, ugh, ugh’ every time AIK’s Pascal Simpson touched the ball. In news footage taken from a match in the summer of 1988 AIK followers can be seen yelling ‘Kunta Kinte’ at Djurgarden’s Glen Myrthil”

The Guardian 19/11/2004Tony Blair and the Spanish prime minister yesterday condemned the racist abuse of black England footballers by thousands of Spanish fans as the disgraceful scenes on Wednesday night prompted outrage in Britain and threatened to escalate into a diplomatic row. Several black England players were taunted with monkey chants and chants by large sections of the crowd at the Santiago Bernabeu stadium during England's 1-0 defeat.

BBC News 07/05/2014Villarreal have been fined €12,000 (£9,850) by the Spanish Football Federation after a fan threw a banana at Barcelona defender Dani Alves. The Brazilian, 30, picked up the banana and took a bite as he prepared to take a corner in the La Liga match between the sides last month.

The Guardian 29/09/2016Russia’s FC Rostov face sanction for banana-throwing in Champions League

The Mirror 21/02/2017Everton Luiz has vowed to continue playing in Serbian football despite racist abuse bringing him to tears whilst playing for Partizan Belgrade last weekend. The Brazilian was abused during the fiery encounter with fierce rivals Rad Beograd last Sunday with what the player describes as monkey chants.

WikipediaShock advertising or Shockvertising is a type of advertising that "deliberately, rather than inadvertently, startles and offends its audience by violating norms for social values and personal ideals". It is the employment in advertising or public relations of "graphic imagery and blunt slogans to highlight" a public policy issue, goods, or services. Shock advertising is designed principally to break through the advertising “clutter” to capture attention and create buzz.

ConclusionThe racial slur ‘monkey’ is an ugly feature in football hooliganism across Europe including Sweden and the UK. Too many people involved in the production and publication of this photograph not to notice the reference and one can only conclude there was intent to create ‘buzz’ by dressing an innocent child with racist slogans.

This post is cut together from various sources. Serious question at the end, please consider.

Wikipedia:The Kingsmill massacre took place on 5 January 1976 near the village of Kingsmill in south County Armagh, Northern Ireland. Gunmen stopped a minibus carrying eleven Protestant workmen, lined them up alongside it and shot them. Only one victim survived, despite having been shot 18 times. One catholic man, also on the minibus, was allowed to go free. A group calling itself the South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed responsibility. It said the shooting was retaliation for a string of attacks on Catholic civilians in the area by Loyalists, particularly the killing of six Catholics the night before. The Kingsmill massacre was the climax of a string of tit-for-tat killings in the area during the mid-1970s, and was one of the deadliest mass shootings of the Troubles.

Belfast Telegraph 02/01/2016:“For years, I didn’t tell the truth to protect the bereaved,” says Alan. “I said it was over quickly with one round of shooting and nobody suffering.“But it wasn’t like that. The men didn’t die in the first round of fire. I can still hear them screaming in fear and agony. The gunmen shot everyone again in the head to finish them off as we lay on the ground. After that, there was no screaming, only silence. I knew I was the only one still alive.”A total of 136 shots were fired. Despite being hit 18 times, Alan survived. “The bullet to the head didn’t penetrate my skull,” he says. “I remember being in awful pain and the rain trickling down my cheeks. “I was so grateful for the rain because my body felt on fire. I must have been lying on the roadside 30 minutes before the ambulance came. It felt like eternity.”

Irish Independent 06/01/2018:A SINN Fein MP has been accused of “poking fun” at the victims of the Kingsmill massacre after he posed with a loaf of bread on his head.In a video posted on Twitter last night, Barry McElduff is seen walking around a service station with a batch of Kingsmill bread resting on his head. Friday, January 5 was also the 41st anniversary of the massacre which saw 10 innocent workers gunned down in cold blood by the Provisional IRA.​Question:Was a three month suspension with pay a suitable punishment for the loafer or does paid leave equate to a 12 week holiday?

For a few years I ran various blogs on different topics but I soon grew tired of sites continuously barraging people with ads and click bait. In 2014 I decided to set up my own site and committed to making it an ad free space so I could write in peace. The result was all my random thoughts, opinions and interests coming to the one place, thechampsvoice.com

Social media presents its own problems with sharing content and the modern day blogger has become a slave to algorithms. For example Facebook prevent you from reaching your own audience unless you’re willing to boost posts, which in effect is paying to advertise posts to reach people you’ve already connected with.

With the start of a new year what I’m looking to do is to set up a mailing list, so if you’d like to receive a monthly letter from the site feel free to drop me a mail at thechampsvoice@gmail.com or hit the subscribe button.

This is a shortened version of a very interesting article taken from washingtonmonthly, written by Roger McNamee (@Moonalice) originally titled How to Fix Facebook – Before it Fixes Us

In my thirty-five-year career in technology investing, I have never made a bigger contribution to a company’s success than I made at Facebook. It was my proudest accomplishment. Not surprisingly, Facebook became my favorite app. I checked it constantly, and I became an expert in using the platform by marketing my rock band, Moonalice, through a Facebook page.

Facebook, Google, and other social media platforms make their money from advertising. As with all ad-supported businesses, that means advertisers are the true customers, while audience members are the product. Until the past decade, media platforms were locked into a one-size-fits-all broadcast model. Success with advertisers depended on producing content that would appeal to the largest possible audience.

Whenever you log into Facebook, there are millions of posts the platform could show you. The key to its business model is the use of algorithms, driven by individual user data, to show you stuff you’re more likely to react to.

Algorithms that maximize attention give an advantage to negative messages. The result is that the algorithms favor sensational content over substance.

It took Brexit for me to begin to see the danger of this dynamic. I’m no expert on British politics, but it seemed likely that Facebook might have had a big impact on the vote because one side’s message was perfect for the algorithms and the other’s wasn’t.

The “Leave” campaign made an absurd promise—there would be savings from leaving the European Union that would fund a big improvement in the National Health System—while also exploiting xenophobia by casting Brexit as the best way to protect English culture and jobs from immigrants. It was too-good-to-be-true nonsense mixed with fearmongering.

Meanwhile, the Remain campaign was making an appeal to reason. Leave’s crude, emotional message would have been turbocharged by sharing far more than Remain’s.

I did not see it at the time, but the users most likely to respond to Leave’s messages were probably less wealthy and therefore cheaper for the advertiser to target: the price of Facebook (and Google) ads is determined by auction, and the cost of targeting more upscale consumers gets bid up higher by actual businesses trying to sell them things.

As a consequence, Facebook was a much cheaper and more effective platform for Leave in terms of cost per user reached. And filter bubbles would ensure that people on the Leave side would rarely have their questionable beliefs challenged. Facebook’s model may have had the power to reshape an entire continent.

The most important tool used by Facebook and Google to hold user attention is filter bubbles. The use of algorithms to give consumers “what they want” leads to an unending stream of posts that confirm each user’s existing beliefs.

We now know, for instance, that the Russians indeed exploited topics like Black Lives Matter and white nativism to promote fear and distrust, and that this had the benefit of laying the groundwork for the most divisive presidential candidate in history, Donald Trump. The Russians appear to have invested heavily in weakening the candidacy of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary by promoting emotionally charged content to supporters of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, as well as to likely Clinton supporters who might be discouraged from voting.

Once the nominations were set, the Russians continued to undermine Clinton with social media targeted at likely Democratic voters. We also have evidence now that Russia used its social media tactics to manipulate the Brexit vote. A team of researchers reported in November, for instance, that more than 150,000 Russian-language Twitter accounts posted pro-Leave messages in the run-up to the referendum.

We hypothesize that the Russians were able to manipulate tens of millions of American voters for a sum less than it would take to buy an F-35 fighter jet.

In the case of Facebook and Google, the algorithms have flaws that are increasingly obvious and dangerous.

Thanks to government’s laissez-faire approach to regulation, the internet platforms were able to pursue business strategies that would not have been allowed in prior decades. No one stopped them from using free products to centralize the internet and then replace its core functions. No one stopped them from siphoning off the profits of content creators. No one stopped them from gathering data on every aspect of every user’s internet life. No one stopped them from amassing market share not seen since the days of Standard Oil. No one stopped them from running massive social and psychological experiments on their users. No one demanded that they police their platforms. It has been a sweet deal.

Facebook and Google are now so large that traditional tools of regulation may no longer be effective. The European Union challenged Google’s shopping price comparison engine on antitrust grounds, citing unfair use of Google’s search and AdWords data. The harm was clear: most of Google’s European competitors in the category suffered crippling losses. The most successful survivor lost 80 percent of its market share in one year. The EU won a record $2.7 billion judgment—which Google is appealing.

Unfortunately, there is no regulatory silver bullet. The scope of the problem requires a multi-pronged approach.

First, we must address the resistance to facts created by filter bubbles. Polls suggest that about a third of Americans believe that Russian interference is fake news, despite unanimous agreement to the contrary by the country’s intelligence agencies. Helping those people accept the truth is a priority. I recommend that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others be required to contact each person touched by Russian content with a personal message that says, “You, and we, were manipulated by the Russians. This really happened, and here is the evidence.” The message would include every Russian message the user received.

This idea, which originated with my colleague Tristan Harris, is based on experience with cults. When you want to deprogram a cult member, it is really important that the call to action come from another member of the cult, ideally the leader.

Second, the chief executive officers of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others—not just their lawyers—must testify before congressional committees in open session. Forcing tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg to justify the unjustifiable, in public—without the shield of spokespeople or PR spin—would go a long way to puncturing their carefully preserved cults of personality in the eyes of their employees.

We also need regulatory fixes. Here are a few ideas.

First, it’s essential to ban digital bots that impersonate humans.

Second, the platforms should not be allowed to make any acquisitions until they have addressed the damage caused to date, taken steps to prevent harm in the future, and demonstrated that such acquisitions will not result in diminished competition.

Third, the platforms must be transparent about who is behind political and issues-based communication. The Honest Ads Act is a good start

Fourth, the platforms must be more transparent about their algorithms. Users deserve to know why they see what they see in their news feeds and search results. Consumers should also be able to see what attributes are causing advertisers to target them.

Fifth, the platforms should be required to have a more equitable contractual relationship with users. Facebook, Google, and others have asserted unprecedented rights with respect to end-user license agreements (EULAs). If there are terms you choose not to accept, your only alternative is to abandon use of the product. For Facebook, where users have contributed 100 percent of the content, this non-option is particularly problematic. All software platforms should be required to offer a legitimate opt-out, one that enables users to stick with the prior version if they do not like the new EULA.

Sixth, we need a limit on the commercial exploitation of consumer data by internet platforms. Customers understand that their “free” use of platforms like Facebook and Google gives the platforms license to exploit personal data. The problem is that platforms are using that data in ways consumers do not understand, and might not accept if they did.